Re: Casey Anthony...

Will the acquittal of Casey Anthony result in widespread baby rioting?
One can only hope.
Cuz that sounds adorable.

"All of you coachella 'regulars' have nasty boy pussies and itchy dick4's on your asses.
Why don't you all make like a tree and get chopped down and die. You all have been dreadfully mean to me.
I Hate you. All of you. None of you will ever get to see a womans chest meat or finger blast hott cougies like me.
Fuck you all. Consider this my resignation.
Fair the well, you elitest scumbags."— Faxman75, who has clearly had enough

Re: Casey Anthony...

The actual evidence tying her to the death of the child was pretty flimsy. This wasn't a jury ignoring a bunch of Bruno Magli footprints and incontrovertable DNA evidence linking someone to a crime scene like the OJ case was.

Re: Casey Anthony...

Originally Posted by Miroir Noir

The actual evidence tying her to the death of the child was pretty flimsy. This wasn't a jury ignoring a bunch of Bruno Magli footprints and incontrovertable DNA evidence linking someone to a crime scene like the OJ case was.

This.

I am seeing a lot of people on social networks commenting on this verdict that obviously didn't pay any attention to the evidence (or lack thereof) presented. Not saying she's innocent, but I can't see how anyone could pay attention to this case and then be outraged that she was acquitted. The prosecution's case was weak.

Re: Casey Anthony...

A lot of the outrage comes from what the prosecution did prove: that she had the mens rea (guilty intent/mind) to commit the crime. It was overwhelming, damning stuff: the kid was an obvious burden to her lifestyle, she acted like a Camus character during the period when the kid was missing/dead, she lied (repeatedly) to law enforcement and everyone else about the disappearance, she didn't show appropriate emotion and concern that one would expect from a parent, etc. etc. What they didn't establish is the actus reus (the guilty act) tying her to child abuse and murder. There was no clear forensic evidence proving 1) the cause of the victim's death 2) an specific act on the part of the defendant, and 3) a causal relationship between 1 and 2. They had the duct tape, but no fingerprints. They had the smell in the trunk of the car and a single strand of hair, but no conclusive proof that it belonged to the victim, or that the smell didn't come from a bag of trash. On and on. Even with a blundering, borderline incompetent defense attorney who foolishly came up with a wildly implausible scenario in his opening statement (that he never delivered on), there was reasonable doubt all over the cause of death in the case.

Re: Casey Anthony...

FWIW, I think there was reasonable doubt in the Peterson case too, but the jury there obviously saw a compelling picture out of the totality of what was presented: enough so that they voted for the death penalty after the fact.